James.
K. Utley, a prisoner without a lawyer, alleges
seven[1] defendants beat him on March 31, 2016, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. “A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the
merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.

Attached
to the complaint are two Department of Correction internal
affairs reports written by Internal Affairs Investigator
Charles Whelan. In the complaint, Utley states the reports
“are fact and true.” ECF 2 at 7. The reports
explain that on the morning of March 31, 2016, Utley stabbed
two guards in the laundry area of the prison. ECF 2-1 at 4.
After the attack, he was handcuffed, transported to an empty
cell block, stripped, and locked in a cell. Video shows that
about twenty minutes later, the seven defendants arrived at
his cell. The report states that one of them grabbed Utley by
the neck and dragged him out of the cell. Utley alleges in
the complaint that after he was dragged out of the cell, the
seven defendants beat him “all about the head, face,
[and] body.” ECF 2 at 5. He alleges he was then taken
to the shower, where Major Carl Tibbles continued to beat
him. The Internal Affairs Report states when Major Tibbles
was asked how Utley was injured, he replied, “Sorry, I
monkey stomped the shit out of him.” Id. at 4.

The
“core requirement” for an excessive force claim
is that the defendant “used force not in a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm.” Hendrickson v.
Cooper , 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal
citation omitted). “[T]he question whether the measure
taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering
ultimately turns on whether force was applied in a good faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
Whitley v. Albers , 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Utley has
plausibly alleged the seven defendants inflicted cruel and
unusual punishment on him in violation of the Eighth
Amendment by acting maliciously and sadistically, in bad
faith for no legitimate purpose. These same allegations also
state an intentional tort claim pursuant to State law.

The
facts alleged also state a claim for failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. A prison official
“can be held liable under § 1983 if [he] (1) had
reason to know that a fellow officer was using excessive
force or committing a constitutional violation, and (2) had a
realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the act from
occurring.” Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 472
(7th Cir. 2009). Based on the facts alleged, Utley has
plausibly alleged each of the seven defendants failed to
protect him from the other six while he was being beaten.

For
these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS James K. Utley leave to proceed against Harrison
Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt.
Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in their
individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages
for using excessive force against him on March 31, 2016, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and State tort law;

(2) GRANTS James K. Utley leave to proceed against Harrison
Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt.
Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in their
individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages
for failing to protect him from attack on March 31, 2016, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment;

(3) DISMISSES all other claims;

(4) DISMISSES Carl Tibbes;

(5) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service,
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to issue and serve
process on Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson,
Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles
with a copy of this order and the Complaint (ECF 2); and

(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),
Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas,
Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles to respond,
as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening
order.

SO
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.